I think most of us had planned that one, I know I had Though surely Federer-Berdych-Djokovic-Nadal would also have produced some winners. But, as usual - barring another Nishikori surprise - it was not to be. This game is indeed difficult. Myself, I haven't won a title yet. Closest was Shanghai 2012 when I had Murray in the final.......

I imagine it's very difficult to actually win a title. I've only played this game twice now, but I tend to make predictions for tournaments as they go along anyway, and only very, very rarely does every result goes the way I expect from R16 on - in the past year, that has only happened in Shanghai 2013 as far as big events are concerned. There's almost always at least one result I really can't see coming, which in a game like this is enough to end title aspirations.

As for this very bizarre situation in the SFs, perhaps a rule whereby a player progresses if both his first pick and backup don't get to play due to withdraws? It's pretty unlucky for a player to lose in a situation where both his pick and backup don't take to the court, I mean for all intents and purposes his picks didn't really lose.

I imagine it's very difficult to actually win a title. I've only played this game twice now, but I tend to make predictions for tournaments as they go along anyway, and only very, very rarely does every result goes the way I expect from R16 on - in the past year, that has only happened in Shanghai 2013 as far as big events are concerned. There's almost always at least one result I really can't see coming, which in a game like this is enough to end title aspirations.

As for this very bizarre situation in the SFs, perhaps a rule whereby a player progresses if both his first pick and backup don't get to play due to withdraws? It's pretty unlucky for a player to lose in a situation where both his pick and backup don't take to the court, I mean for all intents and purposes his picks didn't really lose.

We could consider this new rule but it's not like this sort of thing happens often so it would be very little demand for it.

In other events there are more leeway for the unexpected. IW and Miami are unusual in that you have to accurately predict all four QFs. If they had been played on the same day, which is more common, you can skip one altogether, just having to guess correctly one winner who will lose in the SF and ofc the two finalists to win.

We could consider this new rule but it's not like this sort of thing happens often so it would be very little demand for it.

In other events there are more leeway for the unexpected. IW and Miami are unusual in that you have to accurately predict all four QFs. If they had been played on the same day, which is more common, you can skip one altogether, just having to guess correctly one winner who will lose in the SF and ofc the two finalists to win.

Remember me? I said a few weeks ago same thing nobody listened. I even asked about a sceneraio where both picks got WO.

Again my problem with this is just one thing. If i picked Kei and or Berdych and we know what happened i wouldnt have a problem with loosing the game.

But for those who picked Rafa and Nole its unfair becuase those 2 will advance to next round.

I have been thinking about ways to get around this and adding a 3rd pick would be the easy way out but it could still happen.

This week in sf we dont have room to change. But in early rounds there is always.

Its not my fault the player i picked got a ticket to next round because the other guy pulled out.

Of course it does. We make our picks based on strat, luck , draws etc. To fit in mugs who widrew from certain matches. There are those who use and abuse it. Davydenko comes to mind.

And because in wasnt in the end this time doesnt mean i still dont feel same way.

Those who picked either Rafa or Nole should get one more pick if avaible. To me doesnt make sense lossing while the players they picked went to the final.

Sorry, im not smarter then any of you. I just dont see the logic.

So, I think your opinion reduces to letting W/O's being counted as a win. The problem with that was discussed recently(can't remember where). The points brought up against that did convince me. What if someone gives a walkover before the first ball is played? Then participants can pick that player for a sure advancement to the next day. Situations like this tournament are extremely rare. Adding a provision for this won't make any difference.

So, I think your opinion reduces to letting W/O's being counted as a win. The problem with that was discussed recently(can't remember where). The points brought up against that did convince me. What if someone gives a walkover before the first ball is played? Then participants can pick that player for a sure advancement to the next day. Situations like this tournament are extremely rare. Adding a provision for this won't make any difference.

We talked about time management some might get info faster or ealier then others, in this case if you changed your pick and i didnt its on me.

This time was a double WO it will happen again probably not soon.

In another scenario you pick has 1st serve. The other player falls and breaks a leg, he cant play, your guy moves on but you loose your pick. Your Back up pick Advances to next round due walover also and your tournament is done. And both your picks are still valid for thoer guys in the next round.